Evan Burton

I hope I didn't cause something by starting my thread on the PC sub-forum!

The Education Forum website was hacked today, resulting in a redirection to the hacker's website. We were forced to use the backups of the Forum, and therefore some postings may have been lost.

We apologise for the inconvenience and are taking steps to help prevent it happening in future.

The hacker's website does not appear to contain any malware or malicious code, but if you were redirected to that site it would be advisable to run your anti-virus / anti-malware software and scan your computer. Please remember to update your virus / malware definition files before doing so.

The Education Forum website was hacked, resulting in a redirection to the hacker's website.

We were forced to use the backups of the Forum, and therefore some postings may have been lost.

We apologise for the inconvenience and are taking steps to help prevent it happening in future.

The hacker's website does not appear to contain any malware or malicious code, but if you were redirected to that site it would be advisable to run your anti-virus / anti-malware software and scan your computer. Please remember to update your definition files before doing so.

Why isn't it - to bring this on topic - why is it so important for Evan, Mathew, Dave et al, to prove Jack White wrong about the Moon Landings or moon photos or 9/11, yet it's okay for others to believe Oswald killed JFK alone because he was a deranged nut?

Why is it not okay to prove people wrong? After all, if Jack (or anyone else) is wrong then they are wrong.

Actually, I'll reverse myself here. I ask all concerned to consider the following posts:

Asking in-depth questions based on understanding of the subject IS fair, and does not constitute an attack. Asking uncomfortable questions (like circumcision) does not constitute an attack. Asking questions for which an accurate answer is not given does not constitute an attack. Asking a question for which the answer is "no comment" is not an attack.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=194166

Pipedream. The last thing JVB wants is impartial intelligent questions by an unbiased emcee.

She does not want to be asked about the "Nobel scientists" who back her. Who are they?

She does not want to reveal why she claims to have the highest IQ in Florida. How was this determined?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=194081

Even if her various claims were true, which seems unlikely since she appears in not a single document regarding Oswald, her tales are so peripheral to the assassination as to be meaningless. So what is her motive? To be noticed? To sell her story? To become famous? To sell her tales to a movie maker? To most of us, what she has been doing for a good portion of her life makes no sense to a normal person. That she is unable to lead a normal life seems a path of her own choice.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=193971

Some people who believe JVB have an empty mind...unable to evaluate evidence.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=193806

Jim, everyone else sees who is telling the truth here. Go refigure.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=193704

Only today did Adele get to the "email from Adele" which Judyth alleges that Adele wrote jointly to her and Mary Ferrell.

Adele denounces it as a forgery!

She says she has never seen it before and the writing style is not hers by a long shot. Even with close friends she would not use the words or phrases shown in purple. She had never met Judyth, and in their first conversation she decided that Judyth was a phony.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=193567

JVB is quite an accomplished tap-dancer.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=193362

I remind Jim that DPF is very strict about enforcing the policy against ad hominem attacks from either side of a discussion. For instance in the posting below, Jim would not be allowed to say....meaningless drive ....point of absurdity ....or other comments about the motives of opponents.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&pid=192760

Are these personal attacks, or simply opinions made by a member? Are these personal attacks, or rebuttals towards claims made? Please note that none of these have been edited / made invisible / deleted / etc.

I have not called anybody a xxxx. People rationalize about what their superiors order them to do.

Study of the Nazis make it very clear that people in certain situations will do and say what they

are ordered (or brainwashed) to do. They may rationalize that they are NOT LYING but doing

their patriotic duty. So I do not say they lie.

I say that NONE OF THE EXTANT APOLLO PHOTOS WERE TAKEN ON THE MOON.

Jack

This is what I mean by "wishy-washy" (and I like how you now compare the astronauts to Nazis; nice going).

It is either a lie or not. Even if they are not telling the truth because they consider it their "patriotic duty", it is deliberately telling a version of events they know to be untrue. That is called a lie. The person who knowingly tells a version of events that they know to be untrue is a xxxx.

Edited to add:

The definition of a xxxx is "one who tells lies". What, therefore is a lie?

lie

1   /laɪ/ noun, verb,lied, ly·ing.

–noun

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

3. an inaccurate or false statement.

4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

–verb (used without object)

5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.

6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

–verb (used with object)

7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.

—Idioms

8. give the lie to,

a. to accuse of lying; contradict.

b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.

9. lie in one's throat/teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one's teeth.

I have never stopped Jack making his Apollo claims; rather I (and others) cannot get Jack to defend his claims once they are made. Most often he does not reply - he just calls me a disinformation agent and won't address the valid points I have raised. He makes a claim - which is easily proven wrong - then only talks about it to people who support it. He won't discuss those claims with his detractors because - IMHO - he knows he'll be proven wrong.

I agree completely but I think it goes deeper than that. I don't think Jack is able to admit he might be wrong about something. That would fit well with his seeming paranoia that all those who post opposing viewpoints must be paid to do so. Apparently nobody is able to examine the research and come to a different opinion.

I consider this a personal attack and request that the moderators take appropriate action.

Jack

I submit myself to the decision of other moderators. I will not comment on this in any way.

My favorite, unforgettable Gobelism is a parting remark he made on a Labor Day weekend show when he looked at the camera and stated that the National Safety Council had predicted that x amount of thousands would be killed on highways during the Holiday weekend and that, so far, x amount (a lower figure) had died. He paused, wagged an index finger, and said "some of you just aren't trying."

JG

LOL!!!!

I have never stopped Jack making his Apollo claims; rather I (and others) cannot get Jack to defend his claims once they are made. Most often he does not reply - he just calls me a disinformation agent and won't address the valid points I have raised. He makes a claim - which is easily proven wrong - then only talks about it to people who support it. He won't discuss those claims with his detractors because - IMHO - he knows he'll be proven wrong.

Just so we are clear on this, Jack: you claim the images were not taken on the Moon.

The astronauts who conducted those lunar missions say you are wrong.

So you are saying that the astronauts, who say they have walked on the Moon and took the photographs - which you claim are faked - on the Moon, are lying.

That is your position, isn't it? There is no grey area here; it's one or the other.

Evan, as you should know, there are many reasons for NASA to alter the photos they release, especially when the same rockets are used for ICBMs and spy satellites.

Just because the photos are retouched and Jack has shown that they are, doesn't mean you have to box him in and insist that he is calling Neil Armstrong a lyer.

I thought that simple minds that are easily manipulated are just players in the game, but you are a cop and appear to be forcing the issues of Jack's beliefs to be criminal - or at least a violation of the forum's policy on accusations of lying. If Neil Armstong was a member of this forum maybe he could debate Jack about the matter.

While I don't share his beliefs about the WTC, Pentagon or the moon, I'm sure Jack has good reasons for believing what he does and should be permitted to hold those beliefs without you trying to bust him for calling Neil Armstrong a lier.

BK

Bill,

A couple of points need clearing up here.

1. Jack has claimed that various photographs taken are impossible, not retouched for whatever reasons, but impossible. What exactly did he say?

JW: But then I found, fortunately for researchers, the photos taken on the moon are on the NASA website so you can go there and download them and study them all you want. Every photo allegedly taken on the moon could not have been taken on the moon. They were taken on some studio on earth.

And I also did a time-and-motion study of the number of photographs that were taken on the moon on the Apollo missions. There were more photos taken than there was time to do and have time to do anything else. In other words, if they were doing nothing except take photographs and not doing any of their experiments and so forth, they would have shot one photo every minute.

(my bolding)

2. The astronauts who took those images have repeatedly said they WERE taken by them. They have repeatedly said they DID walk on the Moon. A couple even swore on the bible at Bart Sibrel's demand. They were not drugged, not duped, not mistaken: they were there.

3. To me, that's a black and white situation: Jack is saying the astronauts, who say the images are genuine, are lying.

4. There is no prohibition against calling a non-Forum member a xxxx, a cheat, a scoundrel, dishonest, a wife-beater, whatever. You cannot say that about to a Forum member. There are numerous instances of this on the sub-forum. I can call Bart Sibrel a cheat and a xxxx and there is nothing wrong with that. I know that the rule appears to say that, but we mods (and John) have discussed it on occasion and we know what the intent is.

So no, I'm not try to get Jack to incriminate himself. I'm trying to get him to stop being wishy-washy.

Edited to add:

See this post, where I show the instances Jack has refused to answer questions, continually says NASA is lying, and insinuates that I am a NASA operative.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=182211

Just so we are clear on this, Jack: you claim the images were not taken on the Moon.

The astronauts who conducted those lunar missions say you are wrong.

So you are saying that the astronauts, who say they have walked on the Moon and took the photographs - which you claim are faked - on the Moon, are lying.

That is your position, isn't it? There is no grey area here; it's one or the other.

I've previously supported Israeli actions as defending themselves in a hostile region, but over the last decade they have lost the moral high ground. They have increasingly changed from defending themselves to being the class bully. They have security concerns, but that does not give them the right to commit wanton acts of violence.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/israel-fends-o...00602-wzv4.html

Enough self-promotion Jack. The link on one board is sufficient.

Biggest load of bull I have ever read. I'm unsure if I've ever read an interview with so many inaccuracies before.

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JUNKKARINEN (WITH MORE TO COME)

NOTE: This seems to be a nice example of how Junkkarinen likes to make slight

alterations to the evidence in order to create a false target to attack.

Professor,

Do you mean to say Barb has altered quotes from members and/or external sources? If so, could you highlight an example please? Thank you.

And are you also recording the humidity levels at high altitudes, wind speeds and general data to see if there is a correlation between the weather when you see the contrails and when you don't?

JUDYTH REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT HIS PLACE IN HISTORY

<snip>

I AM UNABLE TO SEE THE EDUCATON FORUM--IT IS BLOCKED TO MY VIEW.

<snip>

I hadn't heard this before. Professor, could you please ask Judyth to explain what message she sees? She is a member in good standing here, and should be able to view the Forum.

Jack doesn't understand the science behind contrail formation nor does he attempt to educate himself about them, so he dismisses it because it would disagree with his own notions.

That sounds familiar... Jack, what's photogrammetry?

Dallas airspace - intersection of about 8 or so different flight routes, all high level (above 18,000 feet).

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/zfw/

(Click on the 'airways' check box)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3172/284136..._d77d28e0a3.jpg

http://contrailscience.com/

John,

Probably not. The airspace over Jack's location is some of the busiest in the world... or at least very busy. I believe it is largely confirmation bias, and the failure to gather any data which may potentially go against Jack's conclusions.

I've asked this a couple of times in the past: Jack, did you contact your local ATC centre to find out what aircraft where there at the time, where they were heading, altitude, etc? Did you speak to your local weather service about the conditions at the altitudes / locations for identified aircraft?

From your previous non-responses to these questions, I have to assume you haven't.

Wouldn't it be a good place to start, getting all the facts together and not just relying on images and your interpretation of things not in your field of expertise?

Thanks for that John. Very informative.

All the evidence points to Mossad carrying out a political assassination, Bill. I think they should face the consequences. But sinking a South Korean patrol vessel? Like you, I think it is far fetched.

What do you think will be the consequences, Bill? Obviously the diplomatic expulsion is just a token effort, something we had to do, but what now?

International sanctions?

I think we'll be seeing some type of 'retribution' against Israel from Hamas and though two wrongs do not make a right, we can hardly blame them, can we?

They have all become bad as each other.

Israel responsible for faking Aussie passports

http://www.smh.com.au/national/israel-resp...00524-w5a3.html

Australia's relations with Israel have hit a new low, with the Rudd Government expelling an Israeli diplomat over the fake passports affair.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, told Parliament today that inquiries by Australian intelligence agencies into the use of fake Australian passports in Dubai had concluded the fakes were the work of a state intelligence agency. Mr Smith said this led to the conclusion there was no doubt Israel was responsible.

"No government can tolerate the abuse of its passports, especially by a foreign government," he said. "This represents a clear affront to the security of our passport system."

The scandal over the use of fake passports erupted internationally after the January murder of a Hamas operative. Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, one of Hamas's top arms dealers, was found dead in his hotel room on January 20. Dubai police identified 27 people involved in the assassination, 12 of whom travelled on forged British passports. Four of the suspects travelled on Australian passports in the names of four dual Australian-Israeli citizens.

Mr Smith said that intelligence sharing with Mossad would also be cut as the fake passports affair drags relations between the two countries to a new low.

Speaking after his statement to Parliament, Mr Smith said the fakes were of such a quality that they “could only (have been) affected by a nation through a state intelligence service.” He said that this had led to the conclusion that “Israel was responsible for the counterfeiting and cloning of those passports”.

The AFP and the Director-General of ASIO made trips to Israel to investigate the allegations. Mr Smith said that the Australian investigation cleared the four Australians whose identities were used in the operation. They were “innocent victims”, he said. On relations with Israel, Mr Smith said: “We do not regard these actions as the actions of a friend.” But Mr Smith qualified his attack on Israel, adding, “We are a firm friend of Israel. We regret very much that this incident has occurred.”

The Minister briefed the National Security Committee of Federal Cabinet this morning on the findings of the intelligence agencies, and recommended the expulsion of the Israeli diplomat as well as a freeze on intelligence sharing. Questioned on whether the officer expelled from Australia was a member of Mossad, Mr Smith said: “I’m not proposing to identify that particular person". However, he appeared to keep open such a possibility by adding, “Our response on any measure is comparable to the British response.” Mr Smith said the abuse of Australia's passports was not what Australia expected from a nation with which it had had such a close and friendly relationship.

Isreal's ambassador is overseas until June 8, but the Israeli embassy in Canberra has declined to comment until later today.

In March, Britain expelled Mossad's London station chief over the use of forged British passports in the assassination of al-Mabhouh in Dubai.

The French, Irish and German governments also investigated the use of copies of their passports in the Dubai killing.